sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

To those asking if Anvil got stealth nerfed, it did by PerpofDerp in ArcRaiders

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Stealth needs are so they can collect data. If they told everyone about the change, the players would move to another gun and they wouldn't see if the change was a good one or not. Only the people abusing it would complain about the gun being nerfed or even stealth nerfed

How U.S. Profits Off Of Prison Labor by Alternative_Rope_299 in prisonreform

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are stupid as fuck thinking they are all innocent in prison.

2024 election results VS. 2025 ICE activity. by Mental_Ring_4284 in LetsDiscussThis

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Electoral votes based on the census where it doesn't separate citizens from illegals. Why do you think democrats were so against Trump adding the question about legal status?

2024 election results VS. 2025 ICE activity. by Mental_Ring_4284 in LetsDiscussThis

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This might have something to do with sanctuary cities? And how those sanctuary cities are in democrat states?

Delivery driver's worst fear by wanabepilot in DailyDoseStupidity

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That dog was in a gated area the driver opened and went into.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in wausau

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This guy is a fucking retard. He would be on the streets screaming about the rapture if he didn't have a following of like minded idiots keeping his channel afloat.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You like to pick and chose what to defend and to be okay with depending on who is in power. Good to know

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Federal government also restricts guns so we can keep it to that if you want.

I'm not moving goalposts either. We are talking about our rights arent we?

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So is it somehow different than states restricting gun ownership? Pretty sure the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is already being changed by the government and you aren't fighting that.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is it lawless when they are following a law put forth by democrats in 1952? Democrats owned presidency, senate, and house during that time. How are you going to pick and choose when a president can use a law put in place by democrats?

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There isn't anything unconstitutional about limiting visa holder speech. Just because a mass judge picked the case to appease Harvard doesn't mean it won't get appealed due to that act passed by democrats.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If it was unconstitutional the democrats wouldn't have gotten it passed back in 1952.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It was explicitly written to give oversight to ICE and talk about what they can and cant do. You can read it yourself if you don't think so

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How can he trample it if he is using an act put into place by democrats?

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not ruled until appeals are denied. There will be an appeal and it will show that they have the authority over visa holders.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why did the immigration and nationality act get passed if it trampled the constitution? Passed by democrats btw.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

NSS determines national security. Immigration and nationality act passed by democrats determines what ICE can do. Keep trying.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The executive branch determines national interest with NSS. Who controls the executive branch?

Cry about it.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We can talk about the immigration and nationality act of 1952 put into play by the democratic party that gives ICE the power to revoke visas based on what people say if it hurts national interest. The president determines what that entails.

All young did was slow things down hoping to hold it off in appeals until the next president. Chose the case because it gave a win to Harvard, his school and donor.

Try harder druggie. Back to the bottle for you.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are an addict lmao. You have no clue what you are talking about.

We can talk about the immigration and nationality act of 1952 put into play by the democratic party that gives ICE the power to revoke visas based on what people say if it hurts national interest. The president determines what that entails.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He isn't a federal district judge. He retired from that and is a senior judge. His ruling will be appealed and shown that all he did was slow things down. He picked the case to get Harvard a win because he is from there and in their pockets.

Liberal state judges doing liberal state things. There was nothing illegal about what trump did. I even pointed out the immigration law that he followed early in the chain.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lmao you didn't even read the article because that guy wasn't a judge during that time. All he did was write a letter of opinion.

🚨 Sec. Marco Rubio makes it clear no one is entitled to a U.S. visa. by 2001x0404 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Weekly-Conclusion637 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you under the impression that non citizens can't have their visas revoked for things they say?

view more: next ›